Massachustts Question 2 "Ranked Choice Voting"

[OutdoorLover]

I am not opposed to ranked choice voting. If you want outcomes to reflect voter choice, it arguably does a better job of that.

Personally, I would really like to see proportional allocation of electors within each state in the electoral college, instead of the stupid "winner take all" system we currently use in 48 states. It's not complicated at all - just allocate electors from each state to candidates in the proportions that people vote in that state. Our current system essentially includes a big "rounding error" as a matter of deliberate process. I consider that malpractice.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

29% in the first round. He ended with 51% of the vote, because the people who supported the moderate liberal in rounds 1 and 2 overwhelmingly moved their support to the progressive liberal rather than the conservative candidate in round 3.

And 16 percent who bulleted one vote.

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

The repeal was entirely driven by Wright supporters who felt cheated out of their plurality-due-to-a-split-opposition victory.

Driven-schmiven. It was repealed.

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

From the article:

"U.S. District Court Judge Lance E. Walker, an appointee of President Trump, sided against a group of plaintiffs that had support from the Maine Republican Party and national Republicans as well.
'My limited charge is to determine only whether the RCV (ranked-choice voting) Act is contrary to the text of the United States Constitution. It is not.' Walker wrote in his decision"

Because of course it isn't.

Like I said, it was a US Constitutional challenge. You say "of course it wasn't", in hindsight. Okay, you're a Con Law expert apparently. Of course, why? Have you fully analyzed all of the Constitutional issues raised by the litigants? My only point was that there were civil liberties challenges that needed to be looked at. I already ceded the point that they had been heard and disposed.

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

Like logistically? Because it's not very difficult to implement, and there is a precedent in Maine?

You want a MAJOR procedural change implemented in the way this state votes, and this is your best argument? Really?

Maine hasn't even used it yet for one Presidential election and has only been using it overall for two years. I wouldnt call it precedent. The experiences of Burlington, VT, Pierce County WA, Aspen CO mean to you nothing I guess. The argument here is should we scrap our current system and replace it. I evidence that it will not achieve the intended results. The problems associated with elections, voter turnout etc are complex social and political issues that need to be addressed at the root-cause level, not by changing the procedures and hoping for a cure-all. Here is a decent opposition piece for those looking for more perspective. The question in the thread asked for reasons to vote no. I've added my two cents. If a major change in public policy is being proposed it would be helpful to see something substantive by way of evidence. Here is a decent article from one perspective:

https://democracyjournal.org/argumen...-the-solution/

[rethcir]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I am not opposed to ranked choice voting. If you want outcomes to reflect voter choice, it arguably does a better job of that.

Personally, I would really like to see proportional allocation of electors within each state in the electoral college, instead of the stupid "winner take all" system we currently use in 48 states. It's not complicated at all - just allocate electors from each state to candidates in the proportions that people vote in that state. Our current system essentially includes a big "rounding error" as a matter of deliberate process. I consider that malpractice.

This seems a little overly complex to me when we could just do away with the electoral college and go directly to the popular vote or RCV nationwide.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by rethcir

This seems a little overly complex to me when we could just do away with the electoral college and go directly to the popular vote or RCV nationwide.

That would take a constitutional amendment, so it is incredibly unlikely to happen given the current political climate.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Maine hasn't even used it yet for one Presidential election and has only been using it overall for two years. I wouldnt call it precedent.

I don’t know about Maine, but Mass would never use it for a presidential election per the language on page 1. It also wouldn’t be implemented until 2022, giving the state plenty of time to iron out the logistics.